Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 209

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reassessment of the Diagnostic Value of Histology in Patients with GERD, Using Multiple Biopsy Sites and an Appropriate Control Group

Zentilin, Patrizia, Savarino, Vincenzo, Mastracci, Luca, Spaggiari, Paola, Dulbecco, Pietro, Ceppa, Paola, Savarino, Edoardo, Parodi, Andrea, Mansi, Carlo, Fiocca, Roberto·2005·The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Histology is generally considered as a tool of limited value in the diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). AIM: To reevaluate the diagnostic role of histological alterations in GERD, using multiple biopsy sites and an appropriate control group. METHODS: We studied 135 patients with typical and atypical symptoms of GERD. They underwent upper GI endoscopy and Los Angeles classification was used for grading cases with mucosal breaks. Biopsies were taken at the Z-line, 2 and 4 cm above it. Microscopic esophagitis was identified by necrosis/erosion, neutrophil/eosinophil intraepithelial infiltration, basal cell hyperplasia, elongation of papillae, dilation of intercellular spaces and a score (range: 0-2) was given for each lesion. Twenty-four-hour esophageal pH monitoring was performed in each patient. Twenty subjects without reflux symptoms, and with normal endoscopy and pH testing were considered as controls. RESULTS: Histological alterations were found in 100 of 119 GERD patients (84%) and in 3 of 20 controls (15%) with a significant difference (p < 0.00001). Histology was abnormal in 96% of patients with erosive esophagitis and in 76% of patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). The sum of scores of microscopic lesions found in all biopsy sites ranged from 0 to 22 and we identified a cut-off value (score 2) that distinguished efficiently controls from GERD patients. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with previous reports on the marginal role of histology in patients with GERD, our study shows that this technique can be a useful diagnostic tool, particularly in patients with NERD, when biopsies are taken at two sites including Z-line and 2 cm above it.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.50209.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 209

Metadata

Authors
Zentilin, P., Savarino, V., Mastracci, L., Spaggiari, P., Dulbecco, P., Ceppa, P., Savarino, E., Parodi, A., Mansi, C., & Fiocca, R.
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2005-10
Volume
100
Issue
10
Pages
2299-2306
ISSN
  • 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-0241
OpenAlex
W2023670929
Cited by
209
References
0
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reassessment of the Diagnostic Value of Histology in Patients with GERD, Using Multiple Biopsy Sites and an Appropriate Control Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.50209.x
The paper
Zentilin, P., Savarino, V., Mastracci, L., Spaggiari, P., Dulbecco, P., Ceppa, P., Savarino, E., Parodi, A., Mansi, C., & Fiocca, R. (2005). Reassessment of the Diagnostic Value of Histology in Patients with GERD, Using Multiple Biopsy Sites and an Appropriate Control Group. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.50209.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.